question for UK & EU boxing fans

[WBC WBA IBF]

..........

[lfc19titles]

it seems that regional titles are far more respected in europe than they are in north america. BBBofC and EBU titles seem to be taken seriously with fighters having a logical ladder to climb on their way to the world title.

with the BBBofC and EBU being founders of the WBC and to this day, the WBC's continental federations in the UK & europe, why did fans ever accept the idea of four world champions instead of viewing the WBC as the true world championship, as created by and endorsed by the BBBofC and EBU?

Boxing died in the uk and was revived but it is a casual sport here, for example, they can't even tell brook is a fraud who calls out big names and then ducks them...then he goes on a pr campaign to think everyone including isis is ducking him

the uk really only care about their local champ, what hearn feeds to them via sky sports and world champs

you can an awful champ, take brook for example, but hearn and co would make people believe mayweather retired to duck him

[Tedkidlewis]

The Lonsdale belt (British championship) is a magnificent belt, hand crafted since 1909. It's a considered an honor to hold this title and you have to defend it successfully three times to win it outright. Still to this day it's held in a very high regard.

[zmm001]

lfc19titles -

how did fans in the UK view the EBA and how do they view WBO Europe?


ted kid -

so if the BBBofC controls the lonsdale belt, which dates back to 1909, and the WBC is the world body the BBBofC helped create, why don't british fans view the WBC as the one true recognized world title?

The WBO europe belt is considered the same as the minor belts (intercontential, International) it has far less respect than the EBU belt nobody calls WBO europe belt holder european champion

[kafkod]

it seems that regional titles are far more respected in europe than they are in north america. BBBofC and EBU titles seem to be taken seriously with fighters having a logical ladder to climb on their way to the world title.

with the BBBofC and EBU being founders of the WBC and to this day, the WBC's continental federations in the UK & europe, why did fans ever accept the idea of four world champions instead of viewing the WBC as the true world championship, as created by and endorsed by the BBBofC and EBU?

Britain and France were the only European countries which helped create the WBC. The EBU didn't even exist back then.

The WBC was founded in Mexico with the aim of promoting Mexican and Mexican American fighters, and is still based in Mexico.

There is no reason at all for UK and European fans to view the WBC as "our" organisation.

[kafkod]

Boxing died in the uk and was revived but it is a casual sport here, for example, they can't even tell brook is a fraud who calls out big names and then ducks them...then he goes on a pr campaign to think everyone including isis is ducking him

the uk really only care about their local champ, what hearn feeds to them via sky sports and world champs

you can an awful champ, take brook for example, but hearn and co would make people believe mayweather retired to duck him

Everything you wote there is wrong!

Boxing never died in the UK, Kel Brook is not heavily hyped or promoted here, and most UK fans regard Eddie Hearn as a con-man who is out to rip us off. In other words, a typical boxing promoter.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I always like to see UK boxers go the traditional route of winning the British, Commonwealth and European titles before going to challenge for a world title.

I thought Joshua might skip it but he's got two of them under his belt now.

Only person who seemed to think he was too big for it in recent years was Khan and we all saw how that went

[D-MiZe]

But what's strange to me is that you guys have one specific recognized British title, one specific recognized European title, but then suddenly when it's time to go for the world title, you guys recognize FOUR world champions, even though the BBBofC and EBU specifically created the WBC.

I consider myself more than a casual fan and this was knowledge I wasn't aware of [BBBC and EBU creating WBC]. So it's not a good enough point to keep pushing tbh.

Boxing isn't big in Britain, it's more of an event than a sport. We get a fighter coming through and Sky Sports will promote the **** out of him, being the next best thing etc another 'Lewis' or 'Mayweather'. None of my mates who are casual have ever said 'Hang on, why is there more than one world champ' nor does lineal mean too much to 'em.

The European scene is also a lot stronger in some divisions than others. Rarely do you differentiate British level and European level as normally those at the top domestically are the best in Europe too. This is why Brits don't really fight for the EU title as much as what they did. More money and better opposition domestically.

Honestly doe, you're looking into this way too much. You're asking a question to a connection most people, most boxing fans, didn't even realise existed.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

can you elaborate on that? i'm not very familiar with khan's early career. thanks.

Khan skipped over the British title because he thought he was going to break Naz's record for youngest world champion.

Then he got annihilated by Prescott.

[techliam]

Oh wow, 'saint laurent' trying to justify to himself his downright strange addiction with the WBC. Shocker...

So, whats the logic this time? The EBU is (now) most respected European title, and as the EBU was one of many founding members of the WBC in the 1960s, the WBC is the most legitimate title now? Or should be in the eyes of Europe? Most people have enough intelligence to separate the organisations, and their belts, despite prior 'affiliation'.

Most European champions don't even fight for the WBC world title. European champions who have progressed onto world honours have fought for all 4 four titles, showing how the current link between the EBU and WBC isn't as strong as you're making it out to be.

The BBBofC is completely separate to the WBC. They work with all four organisations (quite a lot, btw). As is the Commonwealth title, which you've conveniently skipped. The most 'prestigious' is the Lonsdale belt because of its history and cultural impact... at least on a boxer's personal level - however it doesn't mean it's the most legitimate or important in the same fashion. The champion decides the worth of the belt - the exact same logic you should apply to the current WBC world titles.

You're trying so hard to argue the WBC is the only title that matters. But you're only entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.